"xxx.
Finally, to the MAIN ISSUE in this case. The Court finds that the RTC MISAPPLIED the rules on SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
SECTION 3, RULE 35 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that after hearing on the motion, SUMMARY JUDGMENT may be rendered by the court upon application of a party when there is "NO GENUINE ISSUE as to ANY MATERIAL FACT and that the moving party is ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT as a matter of law." The provision reads:
SECTION 3. MOTION AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON. — The motion shall be served at least ten (10) days before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse party may serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or admissions at least three (3) days before the hearing. After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
By GENUINE ISSUE is meant an ISSUE OF FACT which calls for the PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE as distinguished from an issue which is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial.[45] The court can determine this on the basis of the PLEADINGS, ADMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS, AFFIDAVITS and/or COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS submitted by the parties to the Court.
Conversely, the rendition of summary judgment is NOT JUSTIFIED when the defending party TENDERS VITAL ISSUES which call for the PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE .[46] That is, where the FACTS PLEADED by the parties are DISPUTED OR CONTESTED,proceedings for a summary judgment CANNOT take the place of a trial.[47]
Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the FACTS APPEAR UNDISPUTED AND CERTAIN from the PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, ADMISSIONS and AFFIDAVITS. [48] But such should NOT be resorted to -
[I]f there be a DOUBT AS TO SUCH FACTS and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, NEITHER one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the FACTS pleaded by the parties are DISPUTED OR CONTESTED, proceedings for a summary judgment CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF A TRIAL.
An examination of the Rules will readily show that a summary judgment is by no means a hasty one. It assumes a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing after the filing of a MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by one party SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, ADMISSIONS, or OTHER DOCUMENTS, with notice upon the adverse party who may file an OPPOSITION to the motion supported also by affidavits, depositions, or other documents (Section 3, Rule 34). In spite of its expediting character, relief by summary judgment can only be allowed after compliance with the minimum requirement of vigilance by the court in a SUMMARY HEARING considering that this remedy is in derogation of a party's RIGHT TO A PLENARY TRIAL of his case. At any rate, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant.[49]
In the present case, the invalidity of the summary judgment rendered by the RTC stems from the fact that such judgment was NOT proper under the allegations of the PLEADINGS filed. Even by the most liberal interpretation of the Rules, this case cannot be considered as one not involving genuine issues which need the presentation of evidence to determine which of the two conflicting assertions of fact is correct.
From the two Complaints, the petitioners alleged that they are the owners of the three Power Savings Account and that they seek the recovery of their alleged deposits therein with interests and damages for breach of contract. On the other hand, an examination of the Consolidated Answer shows that respondent UBP denied the same and raised material issues questioning (1) the veracity of the entries in the passbooks pertaining to the said accounts; (2) the identities of the depositors or owners of the account i.e., whether or not the petitioners and the "accountholders" by the names of "Brenda Gurango-Redor and/or Ma. Victoria Samonte" and "Brenda Gurango-Redor and Moreno Redor" are one and the same persons based on the signature cards on file with the bank; and pointing out that (3) the particular account claimed by petitioners spouses Brenda and Moreno is actually in the name of one Elpidia Ria Leopando. The issues thus raised may not be categorized as not genuine so as to dispense with a formal trial and to authorize the rendition of summary judgment.
More so with the presentation by the petitioners of an affidavit by one claiming to be Elpidia Ria Leopando that PSA No. 12-011-000352-3 was said to be the owner of, a trial on the merits was a necessity in order to accord respondent UBP the chance to cross-examine the supposed affiant.
From the foregoing, the Court agrees in the findings of the Court of Appeals and restates the same, viz:
While [respondent UBP] may have made ADMISSIONS in its pleadings, the same were EXPRESSLY QUALIFIED AND LIMITED to the existences (sic) of the accounts and the flow of funds therein, even as it was always careful to emphasize that, based on its records, [petitioners] were not the owners of the accounts. Grave misgivings over the TRUE OWNERSHIP OF THE ACCOUNTS was therefore engendered, WARRANTING the conduct of a FULL-BLOWN TRIAL. With unseemly haste, however, public respondent Judge Zeus Abrogar leaped to the conclusion that [petitioners] were the accountholders merely because "xxx the amounts (of deposits admitted to by defendant) exactly correspond(ed) to the principal placements [petitioners] made xxx" xxx The more prudent course of action would have been for public respondent Judge Zeus Abrogar to conduct a trial on the matter. To reiterate, ANY DOUBT as to the existence of a genuine issue shall be RESOLVED AGAINST THE PARTY SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT xxx. The May 4, 2000 and June 10, 2000 Orders granting summary judgment notwithstanding the existence of genuine issues of fact were therefore NULL AND VOID.[50]
Respondent UBP's allegation of the IDENTITIES OF THE OWNERS of the accounts is a FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUE resolvable only in a TRIAL ON THE MERITS. Stated otherwise, the genuine issue presented did not justify dispensation of a trial on the merits. From the Consolidated Answer previously quoted above it was plain, indeed, that respondent UBP HAD TENDERED A GENUINE ISSUE and DID NOT ADMIT THAT THE OWNERSHIP by the petitioners of the questioned accounts. As a result, it was essential that the petitioners establish their allegations with PREPONDERANT, RELEVANT AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
The rendition of a summary judgment, albeit partial, substantially prejudiced respondent UBP to the point that it was DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW; thus, the caution pronounced by this Court in Paz v. Court of Appeals[51] is worth repeating, viz:
Courts should NOT render summary judgment HASTILY but rather, carefully assuming a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing, considering that this remedy is in disparagement of a party's RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. A party who moves for summary judgment has the BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING CLEARLY THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT, and any DOUBT as to the existence of such an issue is RESOLVED AGAINST THE MOVANT xxx.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution dated August 26, 2005 and April 19, 2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67931 are AFFIRMED. Let the records of Civil Case Nos. 99-2069 and 99-2070 be remanded to the RTC for pre-trial and trial on the merits without delay. No cost.
SO ORDERED."
Xxx."
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 172552, September 02, 2015 ]
SPOUSES BRENDA GURANGO-REDOR, AND MORENO O. REDOR, AND MA. VICTORIA SAMONTE, JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND LAWRENCE C. SAMONTE, PETITIONERS, V. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=13451&Index=*47d2af93eea3c41eede94fa5db1eb960#:~:text=%22DISSENTING%20OPINION%22
